(fearful this is going to turn into another endless thread of miscommunication due to lack of clarity in the statements and thoughts)

Doug:
Then stop miscommunicating. :)

Best I can see, is you're coming into this with a very emotional viewpoint, and you are reacting negatively to factual rebuttals. My interpretation, anyway.

"The Taliban has few ties to the civilians they're moving in to use as shields"

Who do you believe the Taliban soldiers are ???

Combination. OBL/Al' Queda is certainly *not* Afghan, in any form. Its been very widely reported that most members of the Taliban are *not* Afghan, or were raised in Pakistani refugee camps (thus having little tie to the people).

Add to that the tribal differences - remember, *you* were the one decrying the overuse of "them" to group together many people who shared a geographic nearness, and even the native Afghan members of the Taliban I don't think can be consider to be "Afghan". (The definition of "Afghan" is one fraught with peril).

No, the Taliban is not there to defend the average Afghan civilian. (Witness the well-reported murders that the Taliban has committed in village after village).

Who do *you* believe that they are?

"Normally, military units will sacrifice themselves to protect the civilians - that being their focus. Sometimes its considered more important to maintain military integrity, but in this case, its not really an 'either/or"

I don't really follow your point here ? - what 'military units' do the Taliban have other than Afghan citizens carrying guns and a few o'seas volunteers ?

The Taliban - which is largely imported, has Scud missiles, tanks, aircraft (or did), helicopters equipped with antitank weaponry, rocket launchers, heavy artillery, radar and IR antiaircraft missiles, anti-aircraft artillery. The Rooskies left a *lot* of stuff behind with the Afghan government, what wasn't used up is mostly under Afghan control. Other has been purchased (What do you think OBL was spending his millions on?).

If it were just people with AK-47s, as you seem to misunderstand, then there wouldn't be an issue.

But since you didn't understand my point:

Sometimes, its more important to save a military unit, even infantry, rather than protect civilians, was what I was saying. There are cases where civilians were left to the mercy of advancing armies, because of the retreat of the military.

The opposite has certainly occured - one very outmanned and outgunned German group held off the Soviets for almost two weeks, until they ran out of ammo in late 1945. They were holding open access to a bridge - and somehow, the division of Germany had made rumor - and correctly, that area was to be administered by the US, and they sacrificed themselves and somewhere in the vincinity of 2 million Germans went from the east side to the west side.

That won't happen in this case. The Taliban as a whole has no consideration for the people of Afghanistan.

Addison

Come back when you can manage to discuss world events with some knowledge of the facts about said world events.

Eh,
Addison

Yet another pathetic insult.

Actually, it was a statement of fact. If you consider it insulting, I'd suggest re-reading what I wrote. And what you wrote in reply.

If we could deal with facts and get away from personal finger pointing and snide remarks I truly believe we could make some progress.

I'd *like* that Doug, and I'm *waiting* for that.

I go into great detail as to *why* I said what I said.

I consider it to be a pathetic insult what you're saying - you're not dealing in facts. Implying that you are, and I'm not is *really* pathetic. Eh. If you want to do that, fine.

But no, you don't get to go claim some sort of moral superiority because you can't stay on topic, or deal with the facts of the situation.

That is a what is becoming a classic Addison insult. "If you can't play the ball play the man".

Oooh. I'm hurt. Lets see... in every case I asked you questions, presented facts that rebutted what you were saying, and you ignored them.

But somehow, *I'm* insulting you, rather than your position.

Eh, whatever, Doug.

Its not worth me going through and detailing all of those that you've missed - in order to "play the man" here.

But the threads in this forum I don't believe support you. Facts, my side (it helps in the counting that you haven't presented *any*)...

What was that about "pathetic insults?"

Addison

Your immediate post above this is repetitive & classic..

And in the *same* vein, you ignored the facts, and made a personal attack. Classic?

Which is what you're _accusing_ *me* of doing. Pot, Kettle, Black.

I'm confused, really I am. I had never gotten the impression that you were as divorced from reality as you're appearing in this thread. Maybe I just never saw it. Maybe its just the subject matter. I'm pondering that, and have been for the past couple of days.

Be that as it may, you *have* laid down several unsupported insults. Support them. Attempting an "apology" while you continue to insult makes no sense.

Neither does posting here when you can't actually stand to have someone not agree with you, that's also nonsensical.

The post you said was filled with insults?

The biggest "insult" was a list of answers to your questions, saying your assumptions (the taliban are a poor, misunderstood, small band of ragged guys with only rifles) to be completely incorrect. If that's insulting, I'm not sure what you're doing here.

In a like manner please don't respond to any of mine - can we at least agree on this ?

Why?

No. That's nonsensical. Granted, if you stay nonsensical, then I will write you off as I've had to a few other people, as not worth replying to. I don't think that was your aim, but its certainly what you're doing.

If you can't deal with people disagreeing, with especially me pointing out the facts that don't support your opinions, well, sorry. that's just tough cookies. Calling that a personal attack, and saying there was a failure to exchange ideas.. I don't really understand that. But neither will I let you insinuate that's a failure on my part, or that I only insult. I've spent a lot of time making sure that I wasn't insulting. Sure, its possible I failed, I've considered that several times, and I re-read my posts that you object to, to see if I can see it from "your perspective".

You're posting some completely unsupported opinions. I disagree with them, and I've said quite clearly why.

You're the one who's called *me* bloodthirsty, don't forget.

If you post that the Taliban is a bunch of poor, misunderstood freedom fighters with only the shirts on their back, and some rifles and pistols, I *will* correct you. Why are you posting, if you don't actually want to discuss? Or asking questions? What's the point? When you post that our actions are misguided because of a presumption that does not fit the currently known facts, expect me to reply, and say "uh, no".

would not have tried to find a new starting point had I not though it worthwhile

Did you? Or did you just say you did? Did you actually *change* anything?

I only saw you say that, and keep right on with your assumptions/opinions that are 180 from what is widely "known" out here. Sure, it might be wrong - but not just because you *think* so.

Sorry Doug, I don't intend to insult you, merely for the point of insulting - but I am a stickler for facts, especially in a situation such as this. Sure, there are lots of opinons out there - but if you are thinking sloppy, with misguided opinions, presumptions that don't fit the facts as they exist, how can you expect to have an opinion that makes sense?

Addison